Is War Ever Justified and What are the Aternatives?

[Mellian]

wondering what people think?

-Mellian

http://kier.3dfrontier.com/forums/sh...threadid=47589


Excerpt from Edmonton Sundy Sun
March 30, 2003
Sunday Comment page 49
"Radically Normal" article
By Andrew Hanon

Tammy and Cheryl, who didn't want to give their last names, felt compelled to come out because as far as they're concerned the war is illegal.

"The circumstances of this war are so blatantly unjust" said Cheryl, who was sensibly but stylishly dressed in hiking shoes, black slacks and wool sweater. Tammy wasn't convinced that all diplomatic options had been exhausted.

Asked if either felt that there ever could be a point when an ultimatum to Saddam comply or face war - could have been justified, they both shook their heads.

"There's no issue that people can't resolve at the negotiating table," Tammy said.

This response just blew me away! I mean... how out of touch ARE some of the peace protesters?!?! That's like saying you should negotiate with a mugger who has a knife out and has threatened you with bodily harm to see how much of your cash he should get.

So basically I started this thread to hear from those that think the war is unjust and wrong to explain their case and provide examples of what could have been done instead of the armed conflict. I really can't get my head around the POV that there is nothing that can't be resolved by negotiating, so I'm hoping that some of you that feel this way will come forward and post some suggestions to the alternatives to armed conflict you feel could have worked in Iraq.

I want honest alternatives to war that weren't tried here people, or at least reasons why you are against it even if you cannot provide them.

Also, let's try and keep the flames to a minimum please. I want a sincere look into the "other sides" POV in the hopes of better understanding why a lot of them are so veahmently against the Coalition's War on Saddam.

[spiritof1202]

People don't realize that we already disarmed Saddam once.... after 1991.

He then kicked out the inspectors and started over rearming.

The only alternative to regime change is a permanent and viable police action on the border, of at least 100,000 troops.... which no one is prepared to commit to indefinitely. Not France, not Germany, not Russia.

[Mellian]

*bump*

[General Ludd]

There is no real alternative to general war - not within the system, anyways. We've been in a continous arms race for thousands of years, and it won't stop untill we get rid of the politicans and hierarchy that controls the world. As it is, the political structure of our world is centered around armies, war, and power.


My alternative for this war in Iraq, though, is to give supervised humanitarian and social aid to Iraq and educate it's people and bring it into a first world nation, it'll change slowly over time and with the Iraqi people in control of it's destiny, instead of an imperialist dictator forcing change and subjugating the land for it's own purposes. I think that is infinately better then emposing sanctions or blowing the place up.


But even just trying to negotiate would be a better alternative then what Bush has done.

[DinoDoc]

Is War Ever Justified

Yes.

What are the Aternatives?

Whatever gets you what you want at a reduced cost.

[spiritof1202]

Originally posted by Osweld
*SNIP*
My alternative for this war in Iraq, though, is to give supervised humanitarian and social aid to Iraq and educate it's people and bring it into a first world nation, it'll change slowly over time and with the Iraqi people in control of it's destiny, instead of an imperialist dictator forcing change and subjugating the land for it's own purposes. I think that is infinately better then emposing sanctions or blowing the place up.
*SNIP*

Saddam has been corrupting the 'supervised humanitarian and social aid', for 11 years now. He syphons off the cash from Food for Oil, to rebuild his military... in particular for goods and services from Syria, Turkey and China.

If Saddam (and the associated Ba'ath party) wasn't in charge... then it might be a viable solution... of course.. if Saddam wasn't in charge... this probably wouldn't be an issue in the first place.

[Japher]

Not this topic again!

Tammy and Cheryl, who didn't want to give their last names, felt compelled to come out because as far as they're concerned the war is illegal.

Way to come out Tammy and Cheryl, uh no last name...

Wussies!!!

[Inverse Icarus]

war is, and will forever be, the end all be all in terms of making YOU do what WE want you to do.

[Dauphin]

War is justifiable when there are no alternatives (including the alternative of doing nothing).

[spiritof1202]

True... War is physical diplomacy

[TheBirdMan]

Originally posted by spiritof1202
He then kicked out the inspectors and started over rearming.

That was here the UN (included the US) failed! They should have stopped than mad man then.

Back to topic:

If agreed upon by a massive majority in the UN (at least 85% but preferable more than 95% of the members should vote Yes - and a Veto not "allowed").

Then: Yes, a war can be justified!

Else: No!

Why 85% and/or 95% support? Because else it would be too easy for a superpower to "buy" the sufficient numbers of votes.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by spiritof1202


Saddam has been corrupting the 'supervised humanitarian and social aid', for 11 years now. He syphons off the cash from Food for Oil, to rebuild his military... in particular for goods and services from Syria, Turkey and China.

I know next to nothing about the "food for oil" scheme, but it sounds like crap to me, for one - if the name is anything to go by - it is just as much about taking as it is giving. Secondly, I don't believe that it is surpervised. Get a few dozen international organizations and maybe even the UN in there handing all the stuff out. If saddam still manages to steal the money, give more. Shower the country in wealth.

This should be done everywhere, infact. Poverty is the number one cause of crime and I think that can easily be applied to a geopolitical level, too. It's counter to my environmental beliefs, but I guess that's the most realistic way of changing the system now that I think about it. The only thing you'd have to worry about then is all the racial hatred born from the wars of the past.

[GePap]

War is politics by other means. We could solve the whole abortion debate in America violently. We don;t, so obviosuly there are alternatives to war.

Moving beyond the self-evident. On the question of Iraq, one has to clarify their aims before they make judgements about war or another way.

If your aim is regime change, then war in inevitable.

If your aim is disarmment, then war can be avoided.

If your aim is containment, then there is no need for war.

Which aim you think is worhtwhile, or vital to US security and world security is what leads to your judgement about whether the war is necessary. Since the pro-war admins. never actually settled on a single aim until the war started, they have left a public discourse in which people aren't even arguing about the same thing.

I don't think regime change is all that important or vital to US security, and the ways in which we achieve it and we handle the aftermath might worsen the situation. because this is what i think, I don;t see the war as inevitable.

Anyone here wo says" "well, what is your solution" assumes wrongly that they and the person they are debating have come to an agreement about what the underlying facts and basis for your argument are, and thus you two are just talking past each other and wasting energy. Apples and Oranges, apples and oranges.

[Az]

Sometimes war is justified, and sometimes not.

[realpolitic]

We armed Saddam, we trained Bin Laden and McVeigh. Bin Laden's group was trained specifically because they were so bloodthirsty. At the same time, we were training Bin LadenGorbechev was saying that he had a choice between being the last "Soviet Emperor" or trying to reform the system.Even the leader of the Soviet Union knew his system had to reform or die! At its most decadent the USSR had 80 year old leaders, now we have a 100 year old senator. We've got to change!

[spiritof1202]

Originally posted by Osweld


I know next to nothing about the "food for oil" scheme, but it sounds like crap to me, for one - if the name is anything to go by - it is just as much about taking as it is giving. Secondly, I don't believe that it is surpervised. Get a few dozen international organizations and maybe even the UN in there handing all the stuff out. If saddam still manages to steal the money, give more. Shower the country in wealth.

This should be done everywhere, infact. Poverty is the number one cause of crime and I think that can easily be applied to a geopolitical level, too. It's counter to my environmental beliefs, but I guess that's the most realistic way of changing the system now that I think about it. The only thing you'd have to worry about then is all the racial hatred born from the wars of the past.

Well... it was actually well supervised. The UN "Oil for food" program is one of the big profit centers in the UN. It grossed $800M "administration fee in 2001.

The UN had a financial motive to continue the status quo.

"Showering the country with wealth" will simply put MORE money into Saddams palaces and weaponry.

Its the regime thats the problem, not the countries wealth. The regime STEALS the countries resources, whatever they might be, to its own benefit first.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Azazel
Sometimes war is justified, and sometimes not.

Anything, and I mean anything, can be "justified". It is all a question of aims.

[Velociryx]

The short answer is yes.

War is justifiable.

Some people who fancy themselves "enlightened" and "above" the notions of war...the notions that sometimes force must be met with force are denying some of the more basic facts of our nature as a species.

That's all well and good, but their high-minded denial does not change the way the world is.

People hate. People steal. People starve and torture each other.

Sucks, but it's the truth.

And if you project weakness, then others who think themselves stronger WILL attempt to take what you've got by force.

If you don't like it, be prepared to shoot back.

If you are not prepared to shoot back, that's certainly your choice, and you will be ushered quietly off the world's stage.

-=Vel=-

[General Ludd]

Well... it was actually well supervised. The UN "Oil for food" program is one of the big profit centers in the UN. It grossed $800M "administration fee in 2001.

If they where making a profit on it, then it certainly is not at all what I am suggesting.

Just the thought of making profit out of a humanitrian aid program...

"Showering the country with wealth" will simply put MORE money into Saddams palaces and weaponry.

So what? even taken to extremes, I doubt he'll ever be able to fund the Iraqi military on a level even approaching that of the USA. He's armed, everyone else is armed, who the hell cares?

Its the regime thats the problem, not the countries wealth. The regime STEALS the countries resources, whatever they might be, to its own benefit first.

That's what I'm saying, give the people so much aid and support that it doesn't matter what saddam's doing. If he's sitting there trying to steal people's money to build palaces while everyone else is having palaces built for them, he's going to quickly lose his influence and he certainly won't be needed anymore.

Truth be told, I haven't heard of anything particularily evil about Saddam's regime anyways. Just the usual stuff that politicans do - a bit of stealing, the odd chemical weapon. The Iraqi people actually enjoy some of the best living standards (pre-war, anyways) and freedom in the region. If I where a humanitarian, I'd be more concerened about places like Afghanistan, or Saudi Arabia.

[spiritof1202]

The only way to give physical aid directly to the Iraqis would require a physical UN presence in Iraq, including armed troops... which Saddam was not prepared to accept, since it would have loosened his grip on power.

France and Russia were not willing to let this happen, vetoing any authorization of effective force, as between them, Saddam owes them $14BN (Russia $9.5BN and france $4.5BN.) They want Saddam to remain in power so that he can repay them. If hes ousted, then the new regime will negate the debt.

[Az]

Anything, and I mean anything, can be "justified". It is all a question of aims.

ok. Let's refrase it. War can be sometimes the most ethical choice.

[spiritof1202]

Indeed. War can be ethical, if the alternative or status quo are more harmful than the resultant harm of war.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Velociryx
The short answer is yes.

War is justifiable.

Some people who fancy themselves "enlightened" and "above" the notions of war...the notions that sometimes force must be met with force are denying some of the more basic facts of our nature as a species.

That's all well and good, but their high-minded denial does not change the way the world is.

People hate. People steal. People starve and torture each other.

Sucks, but it's the truth.

And if you project weakness, then others who think themselves stronger WILL attempt to take what you've got by force.

If you don't like it, be prepared to shoot back.

If you are not prepared to shoot back, that's certainly your choice, and you will be ushered quietly off the world's stage.

-=Vel=-

Or "Might Makes Right".

[spiritof1202]

War is valuable insofar as a definitive solution. Diplomatic debate can become an impasse. War is usually definitive, insofar as each distinct individual is either dead or alive.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by spiritof1202
The only way to give physical aid directly to the Iraqis would require a physical UN presence in Iraq, including armed troops... which Saddam was not prepared to accept, since it would have loosened his grip on power.

Why do you assume it would require force? No one has tried doing without. I'd rather the UN not be involved, anyways - I'd like to see a multitude of international organizations like amnesty international, unicef, ect... doing it. I don't think those organizations have ever needed to sport a military to acomplish their goals, either.

[spiritof1202]

Originally posted by Osweld


Why do you assume it would require force? No one has tried doing without. I'd rather the UN not be involved, anyways - I'd like to see a multitude of international organizations like amnesty international, unicef, ect... doing it. I don't think those organizations have ever needed to sport a military to acomplish their goals, either.

Several international aid agencies HAVE BEEN in Iraq, distributing the "Oil for Food" food and medicines. These goods are coopted by the Ba'ath party and resold to neighbors for hard currency, for regime projects (like Saddams palaces and a Chinese fibre optics network, for the military) and military hardware.

Force (and fear of force) has been, and is the only currency of control in Iraq.

[Velociryx]

Big C - the "in a nutshell" phrase of "might makes right" does not even come close, IMO, to my position.

No, might doesn't make right. But the sorry truth is that in the world we live in, if you do not HAVE might, then those that do will use it against you.

So....whatchagonna do? Doesn't make it right, but your choices are to hit back or die. Which do you pick?

-=Vel=-

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Velociryx
No, might doesn't make right. But the sorry truth is that in the world we live in, if you do not HAVE might, then those that do will use it against you.

So....whatchagonna do? Doesn't make it right, but your choices are to hit back or die. Which do you pick?

You are making a false dilema.

[Mellian]

Originally posted by UberKruX
war is, and will forever be, the end all be all in terms of making YOU do what WE want you to do.

How can you make them do what you want if their dead?

-Mellian

[spiritof1202]

Originally posted by Mellian


How can you make them do what you want if their dead?

-Mellian

You just don't kill EVERYBODY.

or you do, and then claim the territory for yourself.